jafritten
Well-known member
Could you post a link to the discussion, please?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
FOV - beyond what value is too much? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ted Y.
- Start date
Binocollector
Well-known member
Thanks. Indeed, I feel like a kid on X-mas when getting a new package in the mail
. The "Luna Super" is quite good. But I have two and they are very different even though they have the same specifications. One has those strange golden colored coatings that were probably used to make the image brighter, which they do but they also give the image a garish blue tint.The best of the wide angle 8x30s is my "Eschenbach" which was also made in Japan like the rest. Eschenbach is a German company but they never made binoculars, they only imported them.
But despite the narrow view, I'd say my best overall vintage 8x30 is my Optolyth. Best coatings, best build quality and super light with 420 gr. Too bad they went out of business.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
My belief and opinion is that FOV has a sweet spot (size) similar to many of the attributes the manufactures try to improve on. Improve in one area and to some degree it distracts from another. So what are the manufactures goals in mind for the specific optic, think Leica, less FOV softer edges more immersive FOV more image color/saturation.
Of course In someway the manufactures are trying to beat each other out in some area, and a wide FOV is good for stat bragging (Marketing). But there is a limit to usability. I don think a huge FOV is helpful once a certain limit is reached. Take for example the Kowa (I forget the model) 6.5x32, very large FOV but the edges are not really usable. Then you have 7x42 Habicht’s which are known to have a very small FOV (some call it tunnel vision) is very tight , yet can be used very effectively at scanning wide open marine observations, because your eyes are so focused in on that field. Not to mention how good they are in low light, but that’s another conversation.
In my mind a good analogy is today’s performance orientated automobiles in the horse power race. A few manufactures just keep adding more and more horsepower every few years to their model lines. Take for example Dodge, (most do it) makes close to a 500 hp option, which on the street is more than we can use. But then Dodge offers two higher horsepower options at 719 hp and 797hp. This horsepower range is truly not usable under any street driving environments. And even on a race track, in order to get the most performance out of them, requires a couple of tweaks, like race tires to get the most out of it. My point is , it’s unusable under the conditions that the tool is made for, daily transportation. Same with binoculars.
I might ad that some of these incremental increases, once they get to that edge of useability can’t even be noticed. Take for example an EL832 at around 430ft/1000yrds and an SF at around 460ft is barely noticeable until compared to an Ultravid at around 400ft.
Of course In someway the manufactures are trying to beat each other out in some area, and a wide FOV is good for stat bragging (Marketing). But there is a limit to usability. I don think a huge FOV is helpful once a certain limit is reached. Take for example the Kowa (I forget the model) 6.5x32, very large FOV but the edges are not really usable. Then you have 7x42 Habicht’s which are known to have a very small FOV (some call it tunnel vision) is very tight , yet can be used very effectively at scanning wide open marine observations, because your eyes are so focused in on that field. Not to mention how good they are in low light, but that’s another conversation.
In my mind a good analogy is today’s performance orientated automobiles in the horse power race. A few manufactures just keep adding more and more horsepower every few years to their model lines. Take for example Dodge, (most do it) makes close to a 500 hp option, which on the street is more than we can use. But then Dodge offers two higher horsepower options at 719 hp and 797hp. This horsepower range is truly not usable under any street driving environments. And even on a race track, in order to get the most performance out of them, requires a couple of tweaks, like race tires to get the most out of it. My point is , it’s unusable under the conditions that the tool is made for, daily transportation. Same with binoculars.
I might ad that some of these incremental increases, once they get to that edge of useability can’t even be noticed. Take for example an EL832 at around 430ft/1000yrds and an SF at around 460ft is barely noticeable until compared to an Ultravid at around 400ft.
Last edited:
The more FOV the better. If you use your binoculars scanning for objects that cannot be seen with the unaided eye (coastal migration or hawk watching) increased FOV is extremely helpful, no matter the image quality. If you mainly use your binoculars to get a better look at nearby objects (e.g. passerine migration), the FOV is not as critical. A well-corrected wide field is still preferable for me in times like these though.
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
I recently discovered that I like a AFOV with very well defined field stop edges. This is usually possible with binoculars with small AFOVs. That's why I like Leica Trinovid 10x25 and Trinovid 8x20 more than Zeiss Victory 8x25. Even if Zeiss 8x25 has a larger field of view their field stop is a bit blurry with vignetting. Fortunately, there are binoculars with larger AFOVs (and also with a large eye relief) where this vignetting is not present, such as SF 10x42, which have a delightful delimited field stop edges.
In conclusion for me a pair of binoculars can have an AFOV as large as possible if it meets for me this conditions: perfectly delimited field stop, what can I see comfortably with a generous eyerelief (I wear glasses). Here I'm just talking about my subjective opinion of image aesthetics!
In conclusion for me a pair of binoculars can have an AFOV as large as possible if it meets for me this conditions: perfectly delimited field stop, what can I see comfortably with a generous eyerelief (I wear glasses). Here I'm just talking about my subjective opinion of image aesthetics!
Last edited:
I was only teasing a little bit and I understand your point of view. Personally I find SF 8x32 just about perfect for my needs (although the eyecups could do with improving) and SF8x32 simply does not have the glare problem that I experienced in the NL8x32. Nevertheless you are right about the complex eyepiece.
Lee
Last edited:
CharleyBird
Well-known member
I'd like the FOV of a woodcock with the vision of an eagle, and binoculars to match, pretty please.
Tom you ain't nuts but clearly you have never scanned the skies over the hills for eagles, or a big lake for loons or ducks, or across mudflats for shorebirds and peeps, or cliffs for nesting seabirds or falcons, or the surface of the sea or big lake to find diving birds when they re-surface. And although I don't use a spotting scope in the field, millions of birders do use those after searching the distance with their binos to find birds that they then scope. In all these activities a big fov is a practical aid. And the bino manufacturers don't just have birders in mind when they make binoculars, there are others with a wider interest in nature and it doesn't all happen at 100 whatevers or less. Even at close distances getting a view of those pesky small brown birds that flit between reedbeds and bushes is made easier with a bigger fov. Notice I don't say 'wider' fov, because what we see is a circular area and small differences at the diameter can still be useful in providing extra area of view.
As for why bino manufacturers specify the fov at 1,000 metres or yards, it is to make it easy to compare binoculars. Sounds sensible to me, not sinister.
Last edited:
Just for the record: MY NL does not have a glare problem 😉
Well Lee, as you should know from our previous copious personal emails, thats not true. That is exactly the kind of birding I do every day Im out. I birded 3 days a week this years migration (Sept to April), all of it over large tracts of open water. San Francisco Bay, I suspect qualifies, as one example, you could envision. As with glare that I dont see either, I rarely wish for more FOV in my EL 1042s. I have no problem tracking fast moving ducks, geese and raptors out there or zooming in on the occasional Anna's flitting about in bushes a few feet away. In what some may see as my not so humble experience, if folks would stop shopping for binos, comparing this one with that one, and just go use them... hard, these things become doable.
Last edited:
Surely you jest! Take those published 1000 whatever FOVs that we love to wax on about, reduce them to practical birding distances and things are pretty underwhelming. No one who just bought the newest and bestest FOV'd bino wants to hear this, I get it. The makers are making it easier to compare? please. They're making their products look better so we'll buy them.
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
That was my point Grandpa as well. First of all those super wide FOVs are barely noticeable. Nobody is birding at over three football fields, at least not with binoculars. If you are birding at 1000 whatever, then it’s a spotting scope with wide angle lens. This is a marketing thing, it’s about about the stat sheet to check boxes, where one has better performance numbers (that really don’t equate) to useful performance.
The difference between relatively modern binoculars with good FOVs (EL, FL, UVHD, MHG, conquest etc. etc.) are as useful as the newer kids on the block with very wide FOV, NL and SF. It’s like my car analogy, 500 hp is exceptional, start getting to six 700 hp and it’s not usable under normal conditions that you use a car for. It’s the same thing with wide field binoculars, in my opinion.
Think about some of these newer binoculars how much better the edges would be, if they just stopped them down a little bit. It would still be a very wide field.
Yeah but, dont I need 500Hp to go 55? How do you put those smiley face thingies here??? Ah! 😊
Paultricounty
Well-known member
My analogy was more to say or to compare A high-performance car with the current lot of good FOV ( we don’t really need 400 feet and 1000 yards either) to the super wide FOV like cars with ridiculous amount of power that can’t be used. 🚗🏎
Binocollector
Well-known member
I know I'm just talking about the old outdated stuff here as I collect mostly vintage binos but I definitely do notice the difference between 11° or 10.5° on a vintage bino. Most my birding is mainly done at distances of a maximum of about 300 meters. So to me 10 meters more or less at 1.000m is a noticeable difference.
Also -- the car analogies, as much as I like them, rarely ever work. Of course the huge FoV of a vintage 8x30 or 7x35 is used when looking through it even though it is mainly the visual periphery that makes use of the large FoV. It also increases the amount of light getting into the eye and therefore increases DoF as well as the pupil gets slightly smaller. That further increases the useful FoV as field curvature is optically reduced.
I also have narrow binos with flat field and I enjoy those too. But still -- the wide angle ones are more impressive. And one thing I notice on ALL binos that I use -- the softening of the edges is only visible to me when rolling my eyes from left to right, not up or down. On my roofs -- that would lead to blackouts anyway. So moving the bino not the eyes is what I do. And in that case, soft edges (which probably should be the analogy to the 200hp you don't need to go 25mph) still add to the enjoyment of the view to me.
But -- it seems to be purely a matter of preference.
So saying, "ah don't buy the super large FoV models, that is only marketing, they only want your money", makes absolutely no sense if I personally want exactly that wide FoV.
It is analog to saying, "oh, just get a small two-seater electric car, it is more than enough", when you have wife and two kids.
So enough with the car analogies.
Clearly nobody "needs" a large FoV but when was it ever a question of need? There is a saying in Germany, "a hobby is getting the smallest possible benefit from the largest possible investment." (investment here is not only money but time, effort, passion one might say)
Also -- the car analogies, as much as I like them, rarely ever work. Of course the huge FoV of a vintage 8x30 or 7x35 is used when looking through it even though it is mainly the visual periphery that makes use of the large FoV. It also increases the amount of light getting into the eye and therefore increases DoF as well as the pupil gets slightly smaller. That further increases the useful FoV as field curvature is optically reduced.
I also have narrow binos with flat field and I enjoy those too. But still -- the wide angle ones are more impressive. And one thing I notice on ALL binos that I use -- the softening of the edges is only visible to me when rolling my eyes from left to right, not up or down. On my roofs -- that would lead to blackouts anyway. So moving the bino not the eyes is what I do. And in that case, soft edges (which probably should be the analogy to the 200hp you don't need to go 25mph) still add to the enjoyment of the view to me.
But -- it seems to be purely a matter of preference.
So saying, "ah don't buy the super large FoV models, that is only marketing, they only want your money", makes absolutely no sense if I personally want exactly that wide FoV.
It is analog to saying, "oh, just get a small two-seater electric car, it is more than enough", when you have wife and two kids.
So enough with the car analogies.
Clearly nobody "needs" a large FoV but when was it ever a question of need? There is a saying in Germany, "a hobby is getting the smallest possible benefit from the largest possible investment." (investment here is not only money but time, effort, passion one might say)
Last edited:
… and I like to see you write many posts since I get into a good mood each time I read your signature line with the sheep …
Yes I got that. Just havin fun with it.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Oh, I’m not saying don’t buy the super wides at all, you misunderstood me, on the contrary I would suggest everybody buy them, because many of them also have the best optics available. I have most of them and enjoy every one of them.
But Wide-field of view is not the only thing that gives an immersive image , curved lenses, distortion for example in Leica Ultravids are phenomenal, and I like seeing the black barrel field stops. And of course all of this is about preference. My point is quality of the image, clarity, sharpness, resolution, brightness are all more important to me. Without those things first , then the wide FOV doesn’t mean anything. It’s like that quality over quantity thing. I’ll take high quality average FOV premium optics over mediocre Widefield Optics every day of the week. I’ll never miss the wide Field because whatever I’m observing takes my breath away.
My point about marketing is that the manufactures are trying to tweak every aspect of the optics to gain some advantage for the consumer. There are people who will go out and actually buy binoculars based on stats just like that (FOV).
I always found in many of my hobbies that the car analogies work very good and many people understand it. Because most people have a car or two and have bought and sold many of them over the years, so they seem to relate very well. You could say you get a smart car to get to 35mph to the grocery store, the 500hp car for all around use and fun as heck. The 700hp car is for the weekend track meets. 😆
I have my own saying, and it’s actually been handed down from family generations. Buy the best can and you’ll never be sorry. 😀
Paul
